Make a Social Image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations, it discloses important behavior: each call spends 2 Better Design credits, returns public links immediately, viewUrl shows progress then the image page, imageUrl becomes the PNG when ready, and a verified-email account is required. These details materially affect invocation and expectation of results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then covers cost, returned links, prerequisite source, and auth requirements. Every sentence adds operational value with no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important missing context: cost, async progress semantics, returned URL meanings, auth requirements, and where to get designSystemId. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: company, website, offer, and CTA link are the inputs to pass, headline is optional and auto-written when omitted, and designSystemId must come from find-design-system. The optional notes parameter is not mentioned, but it is fully documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: make a LinkedIn-size social image for one account in a catalog design system. It distinguishes the output from sibling tools like make-sales-page or plan-video by naming the exact artifact and scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for use: one account, LinkedIn-size, catalog design system, and it directs the agent to find-design-system for designSystemId. It does not explicitly name when to prefer alternatives such as make-sales-page, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.